Following the intellectual tradition of the Enlightenment, many archaeologists today would agree that the discipline of archaeology primarily aims at re-constructing the past as well as possible, using rational and scientific approaches, methodologies and techniques. The archaeological knowledge gained is then meant to be conveyed, through public education and outreach, to the rest of society.

It causes professional archaeologists much headache when alternative, non-scientific accounts, approaches or representations of their field and profession appear to master more public interest and command larger audiences than their own. The underlying concern is that people get a wrong image, for example because of the ”seductions of pseudoarchaeology” and the ”lure of bogus archaeology”, as Archaeology Magazine recently titled a cover story (May/June 2003). The professionals’ answer is usually that ”we need to get better at communicating archaeology” (e.g. Cleere 1988) but, at least in parts, they really mean that ”all others need to get better at listening to us”.

The aim is that as many people as possible will come to see both the past and the occupation of the archaeologist in the same terms as the professional archaeologists themselves. This is what was meant when Warwick Bray (1981) spoke of the need to bridge ”the comprehension gap” between what archaeologists think they are doing and what most people believe they actually do. Stereotypes that abound in popular culture (see chapter 5) are dismissed in as much as they are ”false” or ”not realistic”. Archaeologists like Stig Welinder (1987, 1997) believe that a mass audience needs to be protected from such clichés and advocate instead that they be made more familiar with the scientific theory of archaeology and the arguments in current academic debates among professionals.

The commodification and glamorization of the excavation of human remains has gone on long enough, and it's difficult enough to battle public stereotypes fueled by Indiana Jones and Lara Croft without having also to witness the promulgation of the filmic fetish with dead bodies in the documentary sector. … Sensationalism always finds a foothold with the inexperienced and naïve. … (T)he history of public portrayals of archaeology and the archaeologist have done no service to the past, nor to the present. … Perhaps the public would be served by a program which does not inflate the artifact or the archaeologist-cum-tomb-raider, but would espouse the responsibilities and sensibilities necessary to writing a meaningful history for present people out of the silent, enduring fragments of the past. Adam Fish, email to WAC list 2003

There is a particularly strong resentment of ”sloppy journalism”. Archaeologists sometimes feel helpless against misrepresentations in the media despite their best attempts at explaining to journalists why their sites are important and what their work is about. Much gets lost, and some gets altered, in the translation from science to the media and popular culture. All archaeologists seem to be able to do is invite the journalists back and ”hope for the best”, as one frustrated colleague wrote in a message to an archaeological discussion group in 2003.

Personally I think pseudoarchaeology has done a great deal of damage to the public image of archaeologists. For example, when I am flying anywhere, I am careful not to mention my area of specialization to whoever I am sitting beside because 99% of the time I will be stuck for several hours dealing with someone who thinks the Egyptians had extraterrestrial help building the pyramids! There are plenty of true, fantastic discoveries out there, but the popular press are more interested in sensationalism than fact. I am working on Iron Age gold mines in Yemen that have generated considerable media interest. Not because the technology is interesting, or because there was a fairly advanced (and relatively unknown) civilization there, but only because of the King Solomon's/Queen of Sheba angle. I have thus far refused to co-operate with any of the documentary producers pushing this idea. I see no reason to add more garbage to the public perception of 'Indiana Jones' style archaeology! Leanne Mallory, email communication 2003

Over the past few decades a constant stream of papers on the challenges of public education and outreach has been published suggesting ever new ways to remedy the present situation and get the archaeological messages better across to more people, more effectively. According to some of these suggestions, archaeologists should:

- discuss problematic popular culture portrayals of archaeology in student classes in order to challenge students to rethink their own preconceptions and ultimately ”diffuse the power of our rivals” (Baxter 2002b: 29);

- catch the interest of wide audiences through, for example, popular re-enactment and then educate them properly later (Näsman 1989);

- present their own views in easily accessible places and formats such as the extensive web pages of In the Hall of Ma’at (as proposed by those running it) ;

- convince their audiences by using humour and make them laugh more (Bray 1981: 228);

- take a stronger role in educating film producers about their field while at the same time learning to communicate through film and television media themselves (Pohl 1996);

- influence the content of interactive entertainment products with archaeological themes, i.e. computer games, so that their (sometimes hidden) messages are more in line with the preferences of professional archaeologists (Watrall 2002);

- focus their interpretations less on spectacular ruins and unusual artefacts and more on landscapes and unexcavated sites, in order to avoid the ”Indiana Jones syndrome” (Hoffman 1997: 82);

- work within the Indiana Jones stereotype, seeking to educate people through this evocative imagery about the reality of genuine discovery (cf. Russell 2002b: 53);

- seek to change popular perceptions and value systems regarding archaeological sites through coded images, among other means, without letting people realise that they are being manipulated by what is essentially archaeological ”propaganda” (Addyman 1990; Pühringer 2000: 88-9).

Regarding the final suggestion, which may well be the one promising the best results, it has to be said however that the Education model is not really compatible with any kind of manipulation or propaganda (unlike the following model I will discuss). According to its own principles of enlightenment, the (rational) way of arriving at a certain insight or position is always more important than any particular content of that insight or position (cf. Holtorf 2004: 47-48).

There is an important social dimension that needs to be considered in this context, too. When the archaeologist Peter Fowler (1977: 188) discerned that the ”pseudo-study” of archaeological sites and topics presents ”an increasingly attractive model of the past to the disillusioned, anarchic element in the outlook of modern society”, it is compelling to rejoin that maybe scientific archaeology, in turn, presents an attractive model of the past to the still believing, obedient element in the outlook of modern society. There can be little doubt that the attractiveness of different archaeological approaches to the past to any individual person is to a large extent dependent on his or her education, social background, and overall value-system.

In an often cited study, the archaeologist Nick Merriman (1991) argued – in line with many other studies – that visits to museums and heritage sites are associated with high culture and expressive of ”a cultivated lifestyle”. He showed (1991: 30) that people who are highly educated and enjoy high social status are more than twice as likely to visit museums three or more times a year than people with minimum education and low social status. Conversely, the latter are more than three times as likely never to have visited a museum than the former.

Many museums are historical museums. Interest in the past, expressed by visiting a historical museum, may thus have less to do with any genuine curiosity about what really happened in the past (which should be fairly equally distributed among people) and more with a perceived need of some people to express social values and attitudes associated with the ideals of the educated middle classes (cf. Schulze 1993: 142-50). That need could also explain the overall very high percentages of people of all backgrounds who agree that ”it is worth knowing about the past”. The kind of ”worth” mentioned there is of course a very different ”worth” than if one would ask if it was ”worth” spending public funds on investigating the past when it could also be spent on improving health care (Merriman 1991: 23, 100).

Some of the key distinctions that operate in the Enlightenment Model can be summarised in the form of a table. It illustrates how ”proper archaeology”, which you find in museums, is closely linked to a number of socially specific values.

Table 6.1: "Proper archaeology” and ”populistic archaeology” distinguished according to the Education Model. Such phrases are used in Pallottino 1968, Fowler 1977, Borbein 1981, Maier 1981, Cleere 1988, Näsman 1989; Jones and Longstreth 2002; cf. Maase 2003)

Understanding the way these distinctions work in relation to each other means questioning the general validity of the Education Model. It is obvious that those not (yet) sufficiently ”enlightened” would not recognize themselves on the right column. They are more likely to claim entirely different values and preferences for themselves (which are beyond the scope of this book). They would probably also be happy to identify themselves with at least some of the dominant portrayals of archaeology in popular culture (as discussed in chapter 5) in a way supporters of the Education Model would not. In sum, as the seemingly self-evident values of ”proper archaeology” according to the Education Model are contextualised, their limited applicability to only one section of society becomes obvious.

The Public Relations Model provides an alternative basis for archaeologists engaging with popular culture, avoiding any reference to problematic social distinctions.

Forward to The Public Relations Model

Return to Table of Contents

Return to Home

References